StrangeSox Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Would a factory worker with a pension they paid into their whole life be forfeited if they were imprisoned? Short of a law explicitly allowing for pension revocation (CA has one for convicted elected officials), there's nothing they can legally do here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 QUOTE (Cknolls @ Jan 24, 2013 -> 02:43 PM) http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_...-01-24-04-19-05 But at least he gets to keep his pension. Second sick motherf***er in CA teacher union who gets to f*** the taxpayer after f***ing kids. This guy should just be used as chum. Take a bow teachers union, you deserve it. i guess we should fire all football coaches too then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 It's a specifically s***ty outcome, but I don't know if it warrants a law that specifically allows pensions to be revoked if a teacher molests a student. Does that happen often enough to warrant consideration? Would it be fair to take away decades of pension contributions? A public school employee would be facing a much harsher sentence than a non-public school employee for the same crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Joe Biden talked about guns today. He said something about 40 clips in a magazine and 10 clips in a round. Seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jan 24, 2013 -> 04:28 PM) Joe Biden talked about guns today. He said something about 40 clips in a magazine and 10 clips in a round. Seriously. who cares? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 who cares? Dont you want the people banning s*** to have the slightest idea of what they're banning? If this were a Republican Senator spouting some ignorant bulls*** about rape you'd be up in arms about him being out of touch. Same applies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jan 24, 2013 -> 05:13 PM) Dont you want the people banning s*** to have the slightest idea of what they're banning? If this were a Republican Senator spouting some ignorant bulls*** about rape you'd be up in arms about him being out of touch. Same applies. The vice president doesn't ban anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Mixing up clip/magazine terminology isn't really that important and isn't analogous to "legitimate rape" comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 24, 2013 -> 05:29 PM) Mixing up clip/magazine terminology isn't really that important and isn't analogous to "legitimate rape" comments. rape is always Nuke's go to analogy though, so cut him some slack. he loves that s***. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 24, 2013 -> 04:30 PM) rape is always Nuke's go to analogy though, so cut him some slack. he loves that s***. Wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 (edited) Mixing up clip/magazine terminology isn't really that important and isn't analogous to "legitimate rape" comments. Same exact concept: Dude who has absolutely no idea what he's talking about hopes to create policy based on his ignorant factpinions. And it wasn't just mixing up, it was more than that. Usually people who get clip and magazine confused simply believe they are one in the same, so how would it makes sense for 40 clips to fit inside one magazine? And the comment about clips in rounds... where do I even start? Is there a bullet out there that can store more bullets inside it to make reloading faster? But then if there were... but there cant... it doesn't make any sense. Edited January 24, 2013 by DukeNukeEm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jan 24, 2013 -> 04:40 PM) Same exact concept: Dude who has absolutely no idea what he's talking about hopes to create policy based on his ignorant factpinions. If he accidentally or mistakenly calls a magazine a clip, he's mixed up terminology but not actual functionality. You, me and everyone else knows exactly what he's referring to there--he wants to limit the number of bullets a gun can hold at any one time. If he mixes that up but it's correct in the legislation, it doesn't really matter. It'd be nice for them not to continually give easy-outs like this, though, and become familiar with bare-minimum terminology. When someone starts talking about "legitimate rape" and making up medical claims, that's a different story. They are factually wrong, and that wrongness forms the basis for inherently flawed policy. They've got the functionality, to keep the analogy, all wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jan 24, 2013 -> 05:40 PM) Same exact concept: Dude who has absolutely no idea what he's talking about hopes to create policy based on his ignorant factpinions. And it wasn't just mixing up, it was more than that. Usually people who get clip and magazine confused simply believe they are one in the same, so how would it makes sense for 40 clips to fit inside one magazine? And the comment about clips in rounds... where do I even start? Is there a bullet out there that can store more bullets inside it to make reloading faster? But then if there were... but there cant... it doesn't make any sense. reminder: Vice President doesn't create policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jan 24, 2013 -> 04:40 PM) Same exact concept: Dude who has absolutely no idea what he's talking about hopes to create policy based on his ignorant factpinions. And it wasn't just mixing up, it was more than that. Usually people who get clip and magazine confused simply believe they are one in the same, so how would it makes sense for 40 clips to fit inside one magazine? And the comment about clips in rounds... where do I even start? Is there a bullet out there that can store more bullets inside it to make reloading faster? But then if there were... but there cant... it doesn't make any sense. well now that I've read what he actually said, I'll just say "Joe Biden." But it's still not equivalent to the rape stuff, because there's other issues wrapped up in that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 (edited) If he accidentally or mistakenly calls a magazine a clip, he's mixed up terminology but not actual functionality. You, me and everyone else knows exactly what he's referring to there--he wants to limit the number of bullets a gun can hold at any one time. If he mixes that up but it's correct in the legislation, it doesn't really matter. It'd be nice for them not to continually give easy-outs like this, though, and become familiar with bare-minimum terminology. When someone starts talking about "legitimate rape" and making up medical claims, that's a different story. They are factually wrong, and that wrongness forms the basis for inherently flawed policy. They've got the functionality, to keep the analogy, all wrong. If we must have gun laws in this country they should be advocated to the public and written by people who have taken the time to learn bare-minimum terminology. Its not complicated, a clip loads a magazine which feeds rounds into the chamber. Boom. Now you know, wasn't that easy? The guy leading the president's task force on guns hasn't even bothered to learn that. Just ban it all! I dont know what that is, ban it! Is it black and scary looking? Ban it! If you dont think this kind of ignorance filters down to legislation and affects the functionality of the laws that are being introduced and the way they will be enforced you're being intentionally gullible. Edited January 24, 2013 by DukeNukeEm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jan 24, 2013 -> 04:58 PM) If we must have gun laws in this country they should be advocated to the public and written by people who have taken the time to learn bare-minimum terminology. Its not complicated, a clip loads a magazine which feeds rounds into the chamber. Boom. Now you know, wasn't that easy? I already knew. It'd be nice if Biden had known. I'm sure the laws will be written with the proper terminology, though. The guy leading the president's task force on guns hasn't even bothered to learn that. Just ban it all! I dont know what that is, ban it! Is it black and scary looking? Ban it! If you dont think this kind of ignorance filters down to legislation and affects the functionality of the laws that are being introduced and the way they will be enforced you're being intentionally gullible. Knowing the technical difference between clips and magazines for a speech really doesn't matter, though. If he says limit it to a "10 roudn clip" or a "10 round magazine," everybody is going to know exactly what he means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 But when he says "10 clip magazine" nobody knows wtf that means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jan 24, 2013 -> 06:04 PM) But when he says "10 clip magazine" nobody knows wtf that means. to be honest, most people don't understand ANY of the gun-jargon that's been thrown around the last few months. and who gives a s***? it's getting banned whether you want it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 But how will Earl Bailey protect us from the government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jan 24, 2013 -> 04:58 PM) If we must have gun laws in this country they should be advocated to the public and written by people who have taken the time to learn bare-minimum terminology. Its not complicated, a clip loads a magazine which feeds rounds into the chamber. Boom. Now you know, wasn't that easy? The guy leading the president's task force on guns hasn't even bothered to learn that. Just ban it all! I dont know what that is, ban it! Is it black and scary looking? Ban it! If you dont think this kind of ignorance filters down to legislation and affects the functionality of the laws that are being introduced and the way they will be enforced you're being intentionally gullible. You make an interesting point. I would agree that I would prefer if people who did drugs were the only ones who could make laws about drugs. You really dont know unless you try it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 24, 2013 -> 05:03 PM) I already knew. It'd be nice if Biden had known. I'm sure the laws will be written with the proper terminology, though. Knowing the technical difference between clips and magazines for a speech really doesn't matter, though. If he says limit it to a "10 roudn clip" or a "10 round magazine," everybody is going to know exactly what he means. It kinda reminds me of when legislators needed a print out to understand the "financial reforms" they were about to pass. If you don't know what you are talking about, you shouldn't be qualified to pass laws on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 (edited) QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 24, 2013 -> 08:02 PM) It kinda reminds me of when legislators needed a print out to understand the "financial reforms" they were about to pass. If you don't know what you are talking about, you shouldn't be qualified to pass laws on it. (we live in a democratic republic where anyone can run for - and be elected to - office!) Edited January 25, 2013 by Reddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 24, 2013 -> 09:04 PM) (we live in a democratic republic where anyone can run, and be elected to, office!) Hell, the people on Wall Street bought tens of trillions in mortgage-backed securities while having no clue what they were buying, and they get paid tens of millions of dollars to supposedly know financial instruments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 to be honest, most people don't understand ANY of the gun-jargon that's been thrown around the last few months. and who gives a s***? it's getting banned whether you want it or not. Molon Labe. You make an interesting point. I would agree that I would prefer if people who did drugs were the only ones who could make laws about drugs. You really dont know unless you try it. Actually you'd probably want to bring in doctors, researchers and pharmacists in who are familiar with the effects certain drugs have on the body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jan 25, 2013 -> 12:30 AM) Actually you'd probably want to bring in doctors, researchers and pharmacists in who are familiar with the effects certain drugs have on the body. s***, no more bars, only one glass of red wine a night for me and you and everyone else, because alcohol is DANGEROUS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts